[philippe]

A real pro sport photographer will buy a D3s, not a D700. And in that area, Canon's APSH system is stil widely popular, in part because of that "extra-reach".

I have met several pros in other domains for whom 12Mpx is not enough. If your business is selling prints, the trend is to larger print, where Canon's 5DmkII or Sony's A850/900 have the hedge (not speaking about MF systems)

When speaking about Art photography, you get the full spectrum of equipement used, but as a trend most are still using film. They use from Lomo to LF, using digital APSC is more popular than FF simply because Photography as art doesn't pay much and budgets are tight.

Pros are not an homogenus category and with the print crisis, photojournalism is certainly not a healthy profession. Apart from the very specific professional sport photography, I don't think major camera makers are developping specific products for this category of consumers. Even when releasing the "pro" 645D, Pentax said they were targeting wealthy amateurs. Fact is there are certainly more amateurs who have the money and buy D700 than pros.

I don't consider myself to be rich, but with an engineering degree and a matching job, I make more money than most anymous professional photographers (I'm not speaking about the top tier / celebrities here) Since I have no children, my buying power of equipment is much bigger, even if I don't make a living of it.

What I'm trying to say here, is that there are much more people like me who buy high end lens and DSLR than pros, and that it's that population that camera makers are looking at.

Pros are important yes, because most amateurs are looking at them when buying high end gear. But, the opinion of real pros about camera brands is much more nuanced than amateurs. At least with the ones I could speak to.

I thought that I was crying in the dessert, now I am no more alone…

[northcoastgreg]

Actually, [the FF market is ] as big as the pricing model will allow it to be. As can be seen by the Nikon/Sony comparison, the market is small because Nikon prices it that way using brand loyalty to extract their margins (and spurring the Hitler parodies). The market is NOT small because it is driven by the "good enough" and "consumer demand" assumptions. It is NOT small because of added costs producing FF bodies and sensors. It small because the market is driven by marketing.

I doubt the market is small because of pricing or lack of marketing. It's small because there exists no broad demand for FF. If there did, it would make sense to make many more FF bodies and to sell at lower margins. But the demand for FF has thus far been small but intense: only a few people want FF, but they want it really bad and are willing to pay premiums for this product.

Is this going to change any time soon? Probably not. Most consumers will choose whatever camera works best with their stable of lenses; and if those lenses are APS-C, they will gravitate toward APS-C cameras, even if they would prefer, in their heart-of-hearts, FF. Nor is it merely an issue of APS-C being "good enough." It's more of an issue of what people can afford; and this includes not just the bodies, but the glass. It's not FF vs. APS-C; it's an FF system vs. an APS-C system. A $1,500 FF camera does not solve this problem.

Also keep in mind that we are in the midst of a fairly serious global recession that is not getting any better and probably won't get any better for some time. For the broad segment of the market, money could be rather tight, making the introduction of expensive FF systems to a significant number of consumers unlikely. Consumers unemployed or weighed down by debts are not likely to invest in FF, no matter how much they would like to.

[Aristophanes]

I doubt the market is small because of pricing or lack of marketing. It's small because there exists no broad demand for FF.

There was no "demand" for credit default swaps either. But they were created, marketed to spur demand, took off, and crashed the international economic system.

Aside from genuine staples (no, your iPhone is not a staple), demand is manufactured.

A $1,500 FF camera kills K-7 sales and about 30% of Pentax's revenues. If Canikon get the price down that low and Pentax has no response, they win, Pentax loses as no new customers come their way. If Pentax loses, existing lens owners lose as well.

[TaoMaas]

A $1,500 FF camera kills K-7 sales and about 30% of Pentax's revenues. If Canikon get the price down that low and Pentax has no response, they win, Pentax loses as no new customers come their way. If Pentax loses, existing lens owners lose as well.

Are you envisioning that $1500 as the MSRP or eventual street price?

[GeneV]

. Where we hit the glass wall is moving upwards. 645D although nice is not, I repeat not the working pro's camera. IMO a huge mistake. No promotion, not support, no marketing etc. Plus it's too slow and big for the shooter who does weddings, sports or wildlife. it's a portrait and landscape camera only.

I hope the thing sells faster than they can build it. I hope it makes money so they can break the glass wall. If they offer a good Ff body, I'll sell what I just bought and get a new system again and I suspect many others will also.

Is the 645d larger and heavier than the film 645 which was a wedding photographer staple?

BTW, the total weight and volume of the 645d and Nikon D3 bodies are almost the same:
Weight with batts Pentax: 52 oz Nikon 49.9 oz.
Volume: Pentax 131.8 ci Nikon 132.8 ci.

[Kunzite]

A $1,500 FF camera

Should we rename this section, to "Pentax Science-Fiction"?

[wolfier]

Stanic,

It's a trivial knowledge that everyone understands that, *in theory*, DOF changes with subject distance only.

But we don't live in theories. In *practice*, DOF effectively changes with sensor size because you want to keep your composition, i.e. want your subject to fill the frame.

Therefore, with a larger sensor size, it's *way* easier to achieve a shallower DOF with the same f-stop, same ISO, same exposure time, *because* people normally move closer with a larger sensor than with a smaller sensor in order to achieve the same framing.

We all know your theory is correct, but they don't apply to real life at all. In real life, that statement "narrow DOF that you can only get from a full frame camera at the moment" you're trying to "correct" is actually right, unless you don't consider filling the frame as an integral part of photography.

An easy example is if I shoot at 85mm, f/1.2 to capture a headshot FF - so when an eye is in focus, the tip of the nose is out of focus. Try to get the same shallow DOF from any APS-C camera and lens combination, while keeping the head occupy the same portion of the frame.

With APS-C, you have no choice but to move further, which increases your DOF beyond recognition, unless you use a lens that does not exist.

Cheers.

this is common mistake just as the one with the magnification ratio being higher on aps-c
the site you linked sais also this (http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html) roll down to the eqation and tell me please, where is the sensor size in that eqation?
DoF changes with various formats because it is not the format size that matters but the size of the circle of confusion, what I mean is if you print contacts from APS-C, full frame or 8x10, with the same lens and focus distance, there will be always the same DoF
the difference shows if we print (magnify) the APS-C and FF to 8x10, therefore the need to "stop down", because all of the circles of confusion get magnifyied as well and appear no more as spots but as circles to human eye (they are always circles)
I was just trying to rectify the statement: "narrow DOF that you can only get from a full frame camera at the moment" it is not right, what Urkeldaedalus needs is a field of view offered by full frame


edit: just check out some more on this than one website with some calculator first
DOF Confusion!!!
Depth of field and diffraction
DOF Revisited
DOF2

---

Last edited by wolfier; 08-12-2010 at 12:26 PM.

[falconeye]

Please, no more DoF talk in this thread. Thank You everybody.

[wolfier]

I don't see how spending $2000-$3000 on an FF body would in any way even get close to "spending MF money on the small format".

I agree with every point that Peter makes in this thread. Shooting at the morning golden hours in the wild - I've been there and *know* that my keeper rate would have been a lot higher if I could shoot at ISO 6400 with impunity.

I've owned the DS, the K10D, the K-7 and now a D700 - and also shot with the D90 extensively (which is supposed to perform almost identically with the K-x at high ISO). Let me tell you the difference in high ISO performance between the D700 and the K-7 is quite a bit more than 1 stop.

Of course the D700 also costs about 3 times the K-7 does, but it's not the point, because it is still a lot closer to APS-C prices than to MF prices. Heck, you could get a used 5D Mk 1 for $1000 and it still performs better than the K-7 at ISO 3200. It's that bad. Even the D3s, which has a 1 stop advantage even over the D700, is still nowhere near the price of a 645D.

Apart from that, the K-7 is the perfect camera - well perhaps I could use a second SD card slot and a wider selection of lenses, but that's about all I could think of.

Peter Zack: Then, you haven't understood what I've said. Pentax must not and will not stay put. But, they have to evolve carefully - due to their limited resources. They have to build their system bottom-up, expanding their customers base every step.
Asking for improvement, is a thing I understand and I'm also guilty of. Better high-ISO on the K-7's replacement - that's a must. Other features, updated to remain competitive. Adding new features, to differentiate them from the competition. Always looking for the opportunity to expand their market. But you're talking about going after those customers that would spend MF money on the small format. Which, again, is unreasonable to ask.

[ManuH]

Lucky me, Falk is not a moderator so I'll add one thing about DoF (and BTW Wolfier is right) is that FF is the sensor format offering the most extensive DoF control. Even MF is not as good because in practice there is almost no lenses below f/2.8 in the MF world. And if you like it wide and fast, FF is the only option. Try to get an equivalent to the 24mm f/1.4 or f/2 on APS-C or any other format. You can't. It's only when going past 50mm that APS-C may have some advantage provided that they use a sensor with a higher pixel density.

Another thing: all the major mounts, except 4/3 are 24x36. There are no dedicated APS-C mount. APS-C has always been about finding a cheap solution. If you remove the sensor price advantage there's not much advantage to APS-C, especially not in the most used 18-50mm range. FF is also not necessarily bigger, even for lenses because a f/4.5 lens is equivalent to an f/2.8 APS-C lens.

I'm sure Pentax already knows all that. What they only need is a good performing sensor. That's maybe the great unknown. Samsung was said to be working on a FF sensor, maybe for a joint Pentax/Samsung FF release. But since the Samsung departure it's uncertain if Pentax will be able to find a good sensor. The Sony 24MP does not make the unanimity and the Kodak 18MP is a CCD with no video or liveview so not marketable.

[jsherman999]

.

Really, I'm trying to nip it in the bud, not expand it - so I'm working with you here!


DOF:

1. For an equivalent field of view, the small-sensor camera has at least 1.5x
MORE depth of field than a full-frame camera would have - when the focus
distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the full-frame
format need a lens with 1.5x the focal length to give the same view).

2. Using the same lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera, the
small-sensor image has 1.5x LESS depth of field than the full-frame image
would have (but they would be different images since the field of view would be
different)

3. If you use the same lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera
and crop the full-frame image to give the same view as the digital image, the
depth of field is IDENTICAL

4. If you use the same lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera,
then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the small-
sensor image will have 1.5x MORE DOF then the film image.

5. Close to the hyperfocal distance, the small-sensor camera has a much more
than 1.5x the DOF of a full-frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of the small-
sensor camera is 1.5x less than that of a full-frame camera.



.

[Kunzite]

I don't see how spending $2000-$3000 on an FF body would in any way even get close to "spending MF money on the small format".
But do you agree that spending $12000++ is getting quite close?
[...]
I've owned the DS, the K10D, the K-7 and now a D700 - and also shot with the D90 extensively (which is supposed to perform almost identically with the K-x at high ISO). Let me tell you the difference in high ISO performance between the D700 and the K-7 is quite a bit more than 1 stop.
We all know the K-7 isn't that great at high ISO. Next model is supposed to be better; much better.
I was talking about the K-x, though - exactly for this reason.

Of course the D700 also costs about 3 times the K-7 does, but it's not the point, because it is still a lot closer to APS-C prices than to MF prices. Heck, you could get a used 5D Mk 1 for $1000 and it still performs better than the K-7 at ISO 3200. It's that bad. Even the D3s, which has a 1 stop advantage even over the D700, is still nowhere near the price of a 645D.
You're talking as if the D3S could somehow be compared with the 645D...
Btw, I believe the 645D is way more profitable for Pentax than a high-end "FF" like the D3s would be.

ManuH: if Sony will continue with "FF", they'll need a new/updated sensor - Pentax could use it. OTOH, if Sony won't continue with "FF" maybe Pentax shouldn't, either? We'll see.
Anyway, I'm not expecting a Pentax "FF" at Photokina.

[Pål Jensen]

If the D700 falls to a $1,700 street price, every APS-C/M43 flagship within $500 is going to have a serious problem competing. .

But why would any manufacturer do that? Making FF compete with the higher end APS cameras will only make all the manufacturers less profitable. Hence, I don't believe it will happen unless sensor suddenly become dirt cheap.

[Kunzite]

Why? That's the 1 million $ question
Maybe... people are just hoping the "FF" will suddenly become more affordable? But with pricier high-end APS-C cameras, the makers seem to have other plans.

[Winder]

The DoF for a 55mm @f/1.4 will be the same on any sensor, the difference is the FoV changes. 55mm on a K-7 gives you the FoV of an 85mm on a FF, but it is still a 55mm lens and will always act like a 55mm lens in regards to DoF.

I very rarely use my 85L wide open. F/1.2 on a 5D is only usable under certain conditions and with certain subjects. DoF is just too narrow for anything but very special effects. When I first got it of course I ran around like kid in a candy store trying to shoot everything at f/1.2....... Pretty frustrating. The vast majority of the great images I have taken with this lens have been between f/2 and f/4. There is really not a significant DoF advantage with FF. If you have a remotely decent subject nobody will notice the slight difference in DoF.

Sony is not going to abandon FF anytime soon.

Pentax is not going to make a FF anytime soon.

Personally I would be more interested in a Pentax FF that was designed to use the 645D lenes. The size difference is almost the same as APS-C using FF glass. I think this would be a huge move in the professional area as 1 set of lenses could be used on a MF and FF body. At least produce a full function adapter that would allow for AF with 645D glass on the FF. I realize the size issues some people will have, but they will stick with APS-C anyway.